Let’s take a huge leap and pretend that powered fixed-wing flight with three axis-control was invented in the mid 1850s in the north. As the technology is perfected and improved past the levels of the Vin Fiz Flyer Vin Fiz Flyer - Wikipedia, the American Civil War begins.
Obviously there’s problems with this premise, from purpose-built engine tech to fuel availability, but it wouldn’t have been absolutely impossible, so let’s hypothesize instead of picking apart the what ifs.
What role would biplanes play in the Civil War?
Would the Union Army have an air corp?
How would the North’s industrial advantage play out with aircraft? Confederate aircraft possible?
Would they serve as more than just battlefield scouts - perhaps offensive platforms?
Would that be enough of a push into modern warfare to end Napoleonic line-up-and-march battles?
Would Lincoln have allowed for total war by air?
Gods, what if Sherman barnstormed and air raided to the sea?
I imagine it would have had a simliar effect than that on WW1… improving each sides ability to recon the other, hence decreasing the chance of successful suprise attack and making defensive stalemates even harder to break.
The Union Army *did *have an Air Corps, of sorts. Thaddeus Lowe’s hot-air observation balloons were invaluable, especially during the Peninsular Campaign.
I agree that it wouldn’t be much different than it was. Balloons served the purpose at hand just fine. WWI era planes weren’t good for much except to fight other WWI era planes. They couldn’t carry much payload like bombs and those were not accurate. Primitive machine guns placed on planes could have some limited use but they would still have to get to a battlefield, figure out the right targets, and get back without getting shot down. It would be much better just to have the machine gun by itself.
Ah, I selected the forum based on the OP’s topic, not on the responses. Please move my thread to Great Debates so I can engage and challenge your position…
Hmmm. That would seem to suggest that ballons and early aeroplanes were functionally pretty identical - and yet they weren’t, as shown by early experiences prior to WW1. Ballons are great for static observation, and spotting of short-range artillery. In terms of reconnaissance of large areas of countryside, keeping tabs on rapidly moving formations, or looking behind enemy lines, not so much.
Flight could have had a large impact - but it would also have needed a bunch of other things to happen, most notably for the relevant generals to rapidly grasp the potential of this innovation (pretty unlikely) and for some sort of wireless air-ground signalling to be developed.
I would have thought that the impact of a handful of flying gatling guns would have been relatively trivial compared to the impact of scouts/couriers capable of sustaining speeds of 25+ mph across all terrain. Historically, aircraft had a substantial military impact even when armed with nothing more substantial than a couple of pistols and a brace of hand grenades. A reliable quick-firing weapon would be gravy, but not necessary to make a big difference.
Like someone else already said, they already had observation balloons. Horses were not all that much slower than 25 mph. My thinking is that soldiers lined up to charge could be devasted by airborn gatling guns – or be forced into other formations to avoid being slaughtered. Either response would have significantly changed the nature of the fighting.
Even if powered flight could have been achieved, it is another major tech jump to be able to mount a Gatling Gun to an early aircraft. The 1865 version was huge and required hand cranking.
Dropping smoke bombs and shrapnel grenades would have been about the only combat use of the planes, but the additional scouting capabilities should have proved very important.
I would figure closer to 7 mph cross-country under fair conditions.
What I intended to say was that a plane powerful enough to mount a gatling gun would make the war significantly different. A less powerful plane that could only be used for observation would not have done so, IMO. YMMV.
On the macro scale, the North would still have won; powered flight is a technological accomplishment and the North had far greater industrial resources.
